Should the word "God" be removed from our currency and our pledge of allegience?

I haven’t seen any evidence that word “God” as it is used on currency or in the pledge of allegiance promotes religion in general or one religion over another. Until I do, I’m in favor of the status quo.

But I agree with Frank. While I personally have no problem with either, were I an atheist, I could see where I might feel differently. Especially given the way we teach/require children to recite the pledge in school and elsewhere. Actually, I find that practice more disturbing as it takes all the meaning out of the pledge and turns it into a mindless recitation exercise for children. The pledge is something I think you should have to be an adult to truly appreciate and stand behind (if you so choose - personally, I have a hard time with the very idea of pledging allegiance to a flag - period).

As for the references to God in the pledge, given that the phrase ‘under God’ has only been in the pledge for 60 years, and given the reason it was added in the first place, I find it hard to justify under a secular government. Same goes for the money, really.

If you want to argue that we should (formally) be a Christian nation, then argue that. If you succeed there you can add whatever religious language to the pledge you want. But if you’re not ready to promote a definitively religious government, I don’t see how you can argue a basis for having religious language in the pledge or on the money.

The argument has been made that the usage of “In God We Trust” on coins, and the voluntary citing of “Under God” in the pledge is that of a secular phrase and secular act, respectively. I believe this argument has merit and will ultimately prevail in the courts. Were I an atheist, I too might feel differently. However, that doesn’t prove that there is an establishment of religion, or that I have been harmed or that I am entitled to a remedy.

My faith is not tied to this issue. Traditional usage of “In God We Trust” dates back over 150 years. Its’ use, along with “Under God” in the pledge, properly acknowledges our nations religious heritage and serves as a reminder that our government has limited power. What essentially is benign speech should not be removed, watered-down or laden with caveats by the courts.

Tell that to the single 8-year old child in a classroom who doesn’t want to say ‘under God’ in the pledge. I think he might argue it’s not so benign. There are certainly plenty of cases of persecution of atheists, so I think it wouldn’t be too hard to dig up situations where people have been harmed by refusing to say the pledge in it’s current form.

Not that ‘harm’ in this sense really has any bearing. Putting the words ‘Under Elvis’ arguably wouldn’t harm anyone either, but that doesn’t make it acceptable or right.

I think there might be an argument to keep it on the money for historic reasons. However, it’s hard to make the same case for the pledge. It’s not historic - ‘under God’ was added to the pledge in 1954, for political reasons. The pledge is a public declaration of allegiance to our flag & country - not a benign, historic piece of writing. It’s a living statement recited daily which clearly states that our nation falls under the dominion of God.

I’m not disagreeing with the sentiment, but I have a hard time accepting the argument that it’s not a pretty clear state endorsement of religion.

I don’t like the court cases either - but at the same time, it takes two stubborn groups of people to make an issue of it.

It’s hard to respond to a hypothetical 8-year-old, which is why I respectfully maintain that this problem is more imagined than real. However, Michael Newdow is back in court, with more plaintiffs this time. If he’s got new and compelling evidence, I might be willing to change my view and give the devil his due (so to speak).

To those that are offended, Just dont say the pledge then!! Our country was founded on this basic freedom. We had a kid in my third grade class who was a Johovahs witness or something I can’t remember exactly. But he just didn’t say the pledge. No harm no fowl. The teacher explained it to us we shrugged and said who cares. And we went along saying the pledge just as we always had. I’m sick of trying to NOT offend someone. I’m tired of having to be politically correct all the stinking time. There are more important things in the world that the atheists or agnostics can fight for besides whether in God we trust is on the money. Or Under God is in the pledge. How about human suffering or world hunger… As Go Fish says, “WEAR A HELMET!”

:D

“Maybe this world is another planet’s Hell.”- Aldous Huxley

Why not take the words ‘under God’ out and then all the people who want to can say the words anyway? All your arguments about ‘being offended’ apply equally to the people who want those words left in the pledge.

I hear a lot more about Christians being offended these days than atheists, despite the fact that Christians set the majority of policy and this country is overwhelmingly biased towards Christians over any other group.

I agree with your comments about human suffering and world hunger. So it sounds as though the solution is for somebody to give in and let go of their side of the argument and humbly focus on the more important things. So, should that be the Christians or the Atheists? If we practice what we preach as Christians, should we not be the first ones to step up?

i figured i would post a few of my thoughts reading what others have posted,

*i agree, there are much much more important things going on. not to go on a rant but Africa has been raped as a continent because of the Americas’ slave trade (and European colonization). we need to do more helping countries in Africa economically so they can become world players (and be able to care for their populations)
*i wouldn’t necessarily sue trying to get ‘god’ taken off the pledge or the money, but i might endorse it and here is why:
-while the ‘god’ mentioned is not specific it is also (for the most part) assumed to be the Juedo-Christian god a large majority of the US believes in. but being that the god is non-descriptive, it begs the question which god is it that we trust? is the all inclusive god that loves all people of the world and wants people to do good to those around them? is it the god that hates gays, lesbians, and veterans? is it the fundamentalist god who holds people on a thread above hell? or a deist god distantly watching us all?

there are so many groups with different views of god it is hard to see which one is referred to on the money or in the pledge. if its the loving all inclusive one, i dont think i have a strong objection to it. but i would have a problem if its rick warren’s god or the southern baptist god. i dont want to say that i trust in a god that condones hate or discrimination.

i think there is a significant hesitance over the pledge because of who it is referring to. not just from atheists, but those who aren’t going to claim their country is under a god they don’t believe in

as for atheists, they are entitled to their own religious views just as much as christians (maybe a bit more because of the past of discrimination). because it directly conflicts with their religion maybe it should be removed. by not having it we aren’t hurting anyone… we lasted over a hundred years without having to say god.. i think we can again.

that all said, i dont say the pledge of allegiance because i can not say that i support the country while it is committing acts of torture and illegally occupying a sovereign country. As a pacifist i think that saying the pledge would go against my beliefs in resolution through non-violent means

-rebeccajean